Talk:Add-on (Mozilla)

Early unsectioned discussion

How are they updated? Do they load the latest version from the author's website, regardless of where you downloaded the extension? Or do they get the latest version from the site you downloaded from? How do they determine the latest version? — Omegatron 22:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

An extension should not be confused with a varient or build. I feel this needs to be corrected. Kilz 14:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Security extensions

There are a number of extensions that make FireFox more secure, and these deserve special mention. In particular, NoScript is in a class by itself in allowing fine tuning of Java and JavaScript, confining permissions to these powerful programming languages to only user-specified pages, and on user-specified terms. In the current environment, NoScript is one extension that anyone who uses Java or JavaScript should be fully aware of.

Other security extensions of considerable interest to the security conscious include FlashBlock, KeyScrambler, Redirect Remover, CallingID Link Adviser, CookieSafe, and the WOT security analyser. Network administrators interested in security will want to evaluate the Public Fox extension, which allows a password to be placed on browser changes and unwanted downloads.

With these extensions securely downloaded from https://addons.mozilla.org , FireFox may be the most secure browsing experience available today. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.68.87 (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Don't all browsers claim to offer the most secure browsing experience? --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Plugins

This article seems like the right place to compare-and-contrast Extensions and Plugins (two different kinds of related Add-ons). I got things started -- please add more! What is the actual, technical difference, in implementation, capabilities, etc? 69.87.203.136 15:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Firefox Extensions.png

Image:Firefox Extensions.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Move + rewrite

There are a few things I'd like to do relating to this page. Here's my list:

• Move to Add-ons (Mozilla). . . done.
  • Fix redirects. . . mostly done.
• Add one of the disambiguation templates to Mozilla Add-ons and this page, each pointing to the other page. . . done.
• Rewrite the article to be more general to fit the scope of add-ons rather than limiting the article to extensions alone. This includes describing extensions, themes, language packs, searchbar "search engines," and plugins.
• Make add-on a proper disambiguation page. . . done.

Something else to note is that the reference to XPInstall is incorrect (and that article should be changed as well) for those Mozilla apps that have switched to the new toolkit extension manager to, uh, manage extensions. If it's any consolation, and by that I mean that which only leads to more anxiety, the difference/transition is confusedly documented at MDC itself, so anyone with expectations for this and related niche articles to reflect the actual workings should be forewarned of inevitable disappointment. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Add-on (Mozilla). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080709010306/http://support.mozilla.com:80/en-US/kb/Customizing+your+Firefox+with+add-ons to http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Customizing+your+Firefox+with+add-ons#Acquiring_add_ons

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Add-on (Mozilla). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120525083816/https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Firefox_addons_developer_guide/Technologies_used_in_developing_extensions to http://developer.mozilla.org/En/Firefox_addons_developer_guide/Technologies_used_in_developing_extensions

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Checked. The bot contribution was good but I revived the link altogether. —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

good entry

Pithy and informative,thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:48EC:5F67:6222:750F (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)